NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236905,00.html

Is he crazy? He wants more troops in Iraq and now says we can send more troops to Afghanistan. Where the hell does he plan to get more troops? The regulars, reserve, and Guard are already streached to the breaking point?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236905,00.html

Is he crazy? He wants more troops in Iraq and now says we can send more troops to Afghanistan. Where the hell does he plan to get more troops? The regulars, reserve, and Guard are already streached to the breaking point?

Draft.

Bassically, yeah, he's fucking lost his brain. What the hell happened to him, he used to be cool, then he turned all crazy ultra-neocon somehow, like over night. We just simply don't have the manpower, or the resources for this sort of thing, well, unless a draft, and we get the nation ready for...total war.:rolleyes:

Draft.

Boy, that will really make him popular with the American people. He could kiss the White House goodbuy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236905,00.html

Is he crazy? He wants more troops in Iraq and now says we can send more troops to Afghanistan. Where the hell does he plan to get more troops? The regulars, reserve, and Guard are already streached to the breaking point?

It's called politics.

He says "Let's send more troops"... others point out the reasons why not...

Then, a few years down the line he accuses them of hating America, voting against the troops, whatever.

Boy, that will really make him popular with the American people. He could kiss the White House goodbuy.
McCain will have his pie and eat it too, just watch. I doubt he'll make a draft the centerpiece of his platform, but it is something that he'll support.

We need the draft.

Nothing builds character like being shot at and killing people for the sake of your country.

It's called politics.

He says "Let's send more troops"... others point out the reasons why not...

Then, a few years down the line he accuses them of hating America, voting against the troops, whatever.

yup

he advocates more troops now, even though its not possible

in a year or so when afghanistan is shown to be as big a snafu as iraq and we have to withdraw in disgrace, he will be able to say "SEE, i told you we should have sent in more troops!"

easy way for him to look right.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236905,00.html

Is he crazy? He wants more troops in Iraq and now says we can send more troops to Afghanistan. Where the hell does he plan to get more troops? The regulars, reserve, and Guard are already streached to the breaking point?

McCain is right, if you are looking to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan - it is clear that they definitely need more troops.

You have three options

1. Draft - not a popular or easy choice

2. Pressure NATO members to contribute more - can be done to some extent, but doubtful if they can contribute enough to meet the requirements.

3. Rope in other countries - like India, Bangladesh etc especially India which would be willing to contribute - but ONLY under UN banner. So the US has to swallow their pride and work with UN. Bush won't do that.

Quagmire comes to mind.;)

He is playing politics.

If any of these feckers had balls they would call for a draft as that is the only real way to bolster UNited States forces to the numbers needed.

You see how many actually call for a draft...they are more worried about their politic life, then the lives of over a hundred thousand troops who were deployed under staffeed for the mission at hand.

Thanks Rumsfeld and Crew. Way to abandon ...I mean support the troops.

McCain has NEVER been anything but an opportunist. He cultivated a "maverick" reputation when it suited him and dropped it when it didn't. He pushed the CAN-SPAM act, which nobody wanted, then spammed his constituents.
Nobody should be surprised by this.

Going to 'Stan would make a lot more sense, I've spoke to a lot of people in the British armed forces who are either on the way or have been. Leave Iraq to sort it outself after a nice bloody civil war as thats the only way you will get some form of stable government.

The whole idea of British involvement is for a number of reasons, the drugs which are a major problem, old memories of the Second Afghan War and revenge for the Kyber Pass, gas pipeline that isn't connected to Russia. These to me make Afghanistan sound a lot more of an important strategical asset that Iraq bloody is.

yup

he advocates more troops now, even though its not possible

in a year or so when afghanistan is shown to be as big a snafu as iraq and we have to withdraw in disgrace, he will be able to say "SEE, i told you we should have sent in more troops!"

easy way for him to look right.

You just have to rely on people ignoring the specifics in favour of the generalities.

And they will - Bush Jr earned his second ticket into office with almost an identical trick.

We need the draft.

Nothing builds character like being shot at and killing people for the sake of your country.
Jail helps too. But hell yeah, we need the draft back. We're a nation of push-overs. We need to suspend the Constitution too, while we're at that. It just gets in the way of our road to redemption.
|WORLD OPINION| :mp5:
|THE CONSTITUTION| :sniper:

McCain is right, if you are looking to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan - it is clear that they definitely need more troops.

You have three options

1. Draft - not a popular or easy choice

2. Pressure NATO members to contribute more - can be done to some extent, but doubtful if they can contribute enough to meet the requirements.

3. Rope in other countries - like India, Bangladesh etc especially India which would be willing to contribute - but ONLY under UN banner. So the US has to swallow their pride and work with UN. Bush won't do that.

Quagmire comes to mind.;)

The depressing part is that you're right on the money... :(

I say we ask the Chinese to come in, they have a drug problem and if we gave them incentives like they could be allowed to join the G8. With a small contribution of their army say a few 200,000 soldiers and plus we wouldn't have to bomb their embassy like in 1999.

The depressing part is that you're right on the money... :(

nooooooo the depressing part is that even if george bush could be made to understand that arya is right on the money, he doesnt have the skills necessary to do any of those things.

Bassically, yeah, he's fucking lost his brain. What the hell happened to him, he used to be cool, then he turned all crazy ultra-neocon somehow, like over night.
Agree with you totally. Granted I don't think he likes what he's doing. I watched an interview right after he agreed on the "comprimise" with Bush over the torture bill and every word coming out of his mouth seemed forced. He knows what it is like to be tortured and yet he feels that the Repubs will call him a "sissie" if he speaks out against it, among other things.

3. Rope in other countries - like India, Bangladesh etc especially India which would be willing to contribute - but ONLY under UN banner. So the US has to swallow their pride and work with UN. Bush won't do that.

Quagmire comes to mind.;)

When the hell has the UN or third world countries ever been capable of doing the job? India, maybe. Asking Bangladesh would be like asking Zimbabwe.

If any of these feckers had balls they would call for a draft as that is the only real way to bolster UNited States forces to the numbers needed.

Or we could let the military do what they are paid and trained to do and that is fight the war without the interference of politicians. They did the same thing to the military in Viet Nam - "Oh no, you can't bomb the North. Oh no, you can't send troops into the North." :mad:

McCain has NEVER been anything but an opportunist. He cultivated a "maverick" reputation when it suited him and dropped it when it didn't. He pushed the CAN-SPAM act, which nobody wanted, then spammed his constituents.
Nobody should be surprised by this.

Wasn't he tied up in the Keeting (Keating) scandal?

When the hell has the UN or third world countries ever been capable of doing the job? India, maybe. Asking Bangladesh would be like asking Zimbabwe.

Must be why Bangladesh is the second largest contributor of forces to the UN peacekeeping missions with 9,692 as of november this year, and after India and Pakistan they are the largest contingent in the mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. You know, where the cease fire is holding and the first democratic elected president in 45 years is about to take office?

When the hell has the UN or third world countries ever been capable of doing the job? India, maybe. Asking Bangladesh would be like asking Zimbabwe.

The list of successful UN missions where India, Bangladesh etc have contributed significantly is pretty long.

The Indian contribution to UN starts with the Korean war and they are currently in Lebanon as peacekeepers.

Bangladesh also contributes heavily to UN peacekeeping.

Bangladesh also contributes heavily to UN peacekeeping.
Still, they'd pack much less of a punch if they had to actually fight the Taliban.

But I guess one could send them into the North, which might free up some NATO troops. Not that the Germans would want to hear about it.

We need to re-instate the draft if we are to salvage Iraq from utter ruin. If the Democrats are against a draft, then it's their fault that Iraq will go down the drain.

When the hell has the UN or third world countries ever been capable of doing the job? India, maybe. Asking Bangladesh would be like asking Zimbabwe.

Why? Because they are both poor? I mean, I don't think of bangladesh as garden spot, but it hardly seems to be in the same league as Zimbabwe.

At any rate, the US should send more troops to Afganistan. Just to relieve the Canadians and the UK a bit.

(Or alternatively, the US could just continue to hold its collective cocks and cry while allowing ex-terrorists to fund raise within its borders. Either one.)

Still, they'd pack much less of a punch if they had to actually fight the Taliban.

But I guess one could send them into the North, which might free up some NATO troops. Not that the Germans would want to hear about it.

Not sure about Iraq, but in Afghanistan, it is more a case of having a presence, protecting govt servants, teachers etc.....giving the assurance to the civilians not to switch over to the talibanis. I would think that they should be able to control the areas away from the border lines while we have NATO manning the border and sealing off the infiltration routes.

Why? Because they are both poor? I mean, I don't think of bangladesh as garden spot, but it hardly seems to be in the same league as Zimbabwe.

The quality of their military is probably about equal.

At this point, I think that this is the only option needed. To send more troops in. We may need to restrategize and replace our troops that are currently stationed wherever across the globe. We're in a mess and now we must fix the mess by swamping both Afghansistan and Iraq, secure their borders to our best to minimize the Iranians and Syrian insurgencies and just down right take control of the area. Having more troops in the region, I feel it would enable us to expedite the training of the Iraqi soldiers and same for Afghanistan and also their police and then get the hell out of dodge. We have many troops around the globe that can be looked at and replaced.

You forgot one option, he is the only one who knows what we actually need in Afganistan, more troops, and then our boys will be able to win there, as we now cannot win in Iraq

As long as the troops are restrained within Afghanistan, the violence is going to continue. They should really just seal off the Afghan-Pakistan border, have Pakistan seal off their eastern border between Waziristan and then let them(Waziristan) declare independence so we can conquer them with a joint Afghan-NATO force, but the gov't is getting too soft and at this rate we will be looking at Taliban strikes in Afghanistan into the next decade.

The quality of their military is probably about equal.

So slightly higher than the US and probably be more dependable as allies in other words.

I still don't see the problem.

Bassically, yeah, he's fucking lost his brain. What the hell happened to him, he used to be cool, then he turned all crazy ultra-neocon somehow, like over night. We just simply don't have the manpower, or the resources for this sort of thing, well, unless a draft, and we get the nation ready for...total war.:rolleyes:
The cynical part of me says that he figured either Bush would never go for more troops or that they're not available, so it won't actually happen, and when Iraq is still a catastrofuck in 2008, he could say "told you so." But Bush may wind up taking him up on the idea, and so when it's still a catastrofuck in 2008, McCain looks stupid.

Which is fine with me.

Edit: The best option is that soldiers start coming home immediately, but that's not going to happen because Bush has said leaving is losing, and he thinks he won't be looked at as a loser.

One other thing. On one of the Sunday news programs, the latest "surge" actually consists of holding troops who've already been there and moving up the redeployment of troops who are coming back for another tour. There are no new troops to send.

We need to re-instate the draft if we are to salvage Iraq from utter ruin. If the Democrats are against a draft, then it's their fault that Iraq will go down the drain.

Nope, the Chimp-in-Chief started the war with Iraq (against the advice of the international community); it's his fault if Iraq 'goes down the drain'.

The Republicans are always going on about "taking responsibility for your actions" but they seem remarkably reticent to do so...

Of course, if we had kept to Afghanistan and not started the whole mess in Iraq we'd prolly still have A) A chance of winning and B) International Support

Of course, with Iraq, we now have two screwups at the same time.

The best option is that soldiers start coming home immediately,

Best option for who? US people? US govt? Iraqis? the world?

but that's not going to happen because Bush has said leaving is losing, and he thinks he won't be looked at as a loser.

Leaving IS losing. If you think it is a bloodbath now, wait until you see Arab sunnis and Iranians moving in and trying to cleanse the area of the other. If you think success of Afghan jihad bolstered the jihadis, wait until you see how much boost it will be for them they have defeated another superpower.

I am more concerned about Afg than Iraq. Atleast I can count on the Iranians blocking the sunnis there because of the Shia holy cities and sites there. Pulling out of Afg is a bigger disaster for me. It will be harder to keep the northern alliance floating when the talibanis push for the cities.

Best option for who? US people? US govt? Iraqis? the world?



Leaving IS losing. If you think it is a bloodbath now, wait until you see Arab sunnis and Iranians moving in and trying to cleanse the area of the other. If you think success of Afghan jihad bolstered the jihadis, wait until you see how much boost it will be for them they have defeated another superpower.

I am more concerned about Afg than Iraq. Atleast I can count on the Iranians blocking the sunnis there because of the Shia holy cities and sites there. Pulling out of Afg is a bigger disaster for me. It will be harder to keep the northern alliance floating when the talibanis push for the cities.

Leaving isn't losing - it is letting others take responsibility for their own actions.

The one thing that is uniting all the militant groups at the moment, is the fact that they can ALL pretend that they are only fighting because of the occupying power.

Take away that excuse, and they have to take responsibility for their actions.

Will it be a bloodbath? Probably - but it's low-grade civil war now, and this can just grind on until we have no soldiers left to fill the gaps. So - yes, Iraqis will have a spate of increased violence- but then it will become increasingly obvious that their violence is 'domestic', not a response to an outsider.

Either they'll stop killing in the name of 'resistance to the empire', or they'll find a route to peace without American interference. There will be an initial cost, but it also looks like the surest route to a solution.

Meanwhile France is pulling out some of its troops (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20061217-Afghanistan.html). Perfect timing to make us popular, if the US media even mentions this. :D

Leaving isn't losing - it is letting others take responsibility for their own actions.The one thing that is uniting all the militant groups at the moment, is the fact that they can ALL pretend that they are only fighting because of the occupying power.

The main grievance of the Iraqi sunnis is not that American forces are there, but the loss of power, the power they had for many centuries.

You think when the US withdraws, the sunnis and shias will come together and sing kumbaya...lol.


Will it be a bloodbath? Probably

It is not a probability, but a certainty.


So - yes, Iraqis will have a spate of increased violence- but then it will become increasingly obvious that their violence is 'domestic', not a response to an outsider.

That's supposed to sit easier on American conscience because it can no longer be blamed on them?


Either they'll stop killing in the name of 'resistance to the empire'

They are not "resisting the empire".

The sunnis are saying "get the fuck out so we can show the shias their place". If the US army stays within its fortresses and does not venture out, there will still be car bombs and such, because most of the militant activities are not aimed at US army, but at the Iraqi govt structure and civilians.

In a way, Americans are the collaterals here.

The main grievance of the Iraqi sunnis is not that American forces are there, but the loss of power, the power they had for many centuries.

You think when the US withdraws, the sunnis and shias will come together and sing kumbaya...lol.


No -I don't think that. Hence, I used words like 'civil war' and 'bloodbath'.

Attempting to trivialise what I wrote is fine - just don't pretend it is representative in any way, of what I said.


It is not a probability, but a certainty.


There are no certainties. But, it is very probable.


That's supposed to sit easier on American conscience because it can no longer be blamed on them?


First - who cares? I'm not American. It's not consciences I'm worried about.

Second - A lot of Americans don't like the fact that there is a bodycount tied directly to 'us' just being there. Yes - this bodycount will no longer be a factor. Yes - a lot of Americans will be happier with foreign policy because of that.

Third - there is a whole world out there. Perceptions on the world stage are being affected by all of those in Iraq, right now. It isn't just about salving American consciences.


They are not "resisting the empire".

The sunnis are saying "get the fuck out so we can show the shias their place". If the US army stays within its fortresses and does not venture out, there will still be car bombs and such, because most of the militant activities are not aimed at US army, but at the Iraqi govt structure and civilians.

In a way, Americans are the collaterals here.

Sunni on occupation violence is what?

First - who cares? I'm not American.

Neither am I.

It's not consciences I'm worried about.

I mistook your but then it will become increasingly obvious that their violence is 'domestic', not a response to an outsider.

Either they'll stop killing in the name of 'resistance to the empire', or they'll find a route to peace without American interference. There will be an initial cost, but it also looks like the surest route to a solution.

as, "I don't care as long as they don't kill in my name"...

Still, there is no reason that what you say will happen if US withdraws. What will happen for sure is the bloodbath. You are hoping for both sides seeking accommodation after an initial spurt of violence.

That sort of thing is possible only when the parties involved represent themselves. Not when they are proxies for somebody else. Most of the longstanding conflicts in the world are because of the non-accommodation of the involved parties because their masters keep it that way. Iran and KSA got nothing to lose and everything to gain w.r.t domestic compulsions in keeping the pot boiling.

The calls for that are already there...

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Gulf%2C+Middle+East+%26+Africa&month=December2006&file=World_News200612122550.xml
A group of prominent Saudi clerics have called on Sunni Muslims around the world to mobilise against Shi’ites in Iraq, although a statement they issued fell short of calling for a jihad.

The statement appearing on Saudi Islamist Web sites yesterday said Sunni Muslims were being murdered and marginalised by Shi’ites, backed by Iran, and the US-led forces.

Saudi Arabia, a bastion of Sunni Islam, backs the Shi’ite-dominated government of Nuri Al Maliki largely because it fears that sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shi’ites could lead to the break-up of its northern neighbour and spill over its borders.

“We direct this message to all concerned about Shi’ites in the world: the murder, torture and displacement of Sunnis ... is an outrage. We don’t think you would accept to be treated like this,” said the statement, dated December 7.

“Muslims must stand directly with our Sunni brothers in Iraq and support them by all appropriate, well-studied means ... Muslims generally should be made aware of the danger of the Shi’ites,” it said.

“Clerics and intellectuals should not stand hands folded over what’s happening to their Sunni brothers in Iraq; all occasions should be used to expose the Shi’ites’ practices ... What has been taken by force can only be got back by force.”

The statement was signed by 38 clerics and Islamic preachers, including Abdel-Rahman Al Barrak, Safar Al Hawali and Nasser Al Omar, leading figures of Saudi Arabia’s hardline school of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism.


Sunni on occupation violence is what?

Miniscule compared to sunni on shia violence.

Currently ~ 50 Iraqis dies to 1 American

I mistook your

as, "I don't care as long as they don't kill in my name"...


You misread it.

The occupation is used as an excuse. Remove the excuse, and people can no longer use it. Either the violence would drop once that excus was removed... or another accomodation will have to be made.


Still, there is no reason that what you say will happen if US withdraws. What will happen for sure is the bloodbath. You are hoping for both sides seeking accommodation after an initial spurt of violence.


Because civil wars are largely self-limiting. One way or another.

The proles get easily caught up in motivational speaking. If you remove one of the big 'sticks' being used to stir Iraq, you will probably simultaneously reduce the appeal of the militant factions.


That sort of thing is possible only when the parties involved represent themselves. Not when they are proxies for somebody else. Most of the longstanding conflicts in the world are because of the non-accommodation of the involved parties because their masters keep it that way. Iran and KSA got nothing to lose and everything to gain w.r.t domestic compulsions in keeping the pot boiling.

The calls for that are already there...


Or maybe your tinfoil hat needs loosening?


Miniscule compared to sunni on shia violence.

Currently ~ 50 Iraqis dies to 1 American

Irrelevent. The point is, all factions are fighting the occupier, to some extent, for their own reasons.

We need to re-instate the draft if we are to salvage Iraq from utter ruin. If the Democrats are against a draft, then it's their fault that Iraq will go down the drain.

:rolleyes:

Did you just wake up from a 4 year nap or something?

Think before you speak, otherwise don't be surprised when people ignore your idiocy.

Of course, if we had kept to Afghanistan and not started the whole mess in Iraq we'd prolly still have A) A chance of winning and B) International Support

Of course, with Iraq, we now have two screwups at the same time.

I've been saying that since before we went into Iraq.

Of course, I'm not a member of the NeoCon inner circle, so what do I know? :rolleyes:

We need to re-instate the draft if we are to salvage Iraq from utter ruin. If the Democrats are against a draft, then it's their fault that Iraq will go down the drain.I take it you've already volunteered for service then?

Mcain has always been an oportunistic dickwad. I have been todl that he literally let men die under him in the Hilton because he fought the NV so hard--mind he also "mistakenly signed an anti american paper and then condemned his own men for doing the same. I wouldn't vote for him if he offered me a million dollars, his wife and three camels. I have never considered him a hero for getting shot down and toturing his own guys. He should have been lynched. As a vet of a number of nasty places: You don't screw your men! He did.


OUr nAzi friend has appeared in here eh? I'm afraid I agree with im. We should bring back thedraft. Lottery, no exceptions for college, no national guard service except by men who are coming off of active duty. Let the rich guys be privates as well.

Oh heck. I won't get into my views on officers and the fact that they shoudl all be prior enlisted...etc etc etc...

You know whose to blame for all this?...THE DEMOCRATS.

No only joking, this happened coz of rumsfeld's err...dickishness (thank YOU Jon stewart). Him and his rumsfeld doctrine. We need more troops, the Iraq and afghanistan would be in an allowable position with more troops until their respective army's got to full capacity and then we'd leave, bush would be a war hero (YAY!) and we all live happily ever after...